SULINDER SINGH Vs. DIDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala, (hereinafter called the Tribunal), dated March 21, 1983, whereby a sum of Rs. 48,000/- has been awarded as compensation on account of the injuries caused to Didar Singh, claimant.

(2.) ON November 23, 1779, Ambassador car No. DHB-660, driven by Salinder Singh alias Satinderjit Singh (the owner and the driver of the car), hit Didar Singh on the kutcha berm of the road at bus adda village Singh-pura as a result of which, he sustained injuries on his legs (which were crushed) and head. The car was being driven at a very high speed, rashly and negligently. Didar Singh was admitted to the P G.I. immediately and discharged on December 18, 1979. He was again admitted there on January 9, 1980 and was discharged on February 1, 1980. According to the claimant, he spent a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on his treatment and that it was still continuing. Due to the injuries sustained by him, he had become permanently disabled and could not do his day to day work. He was about 47 years of age at the time of the accident. Because of the injuries sustained, he claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,00)/- by way of compensation on account of loss of income, for pain and suffering and permanent disability etc. In the written statement, the driver and the owner of the car, Salinder Singh pleaded that the accident had taken place due to the rashness and negligence of Didar Singh, claimant, himself. Didar Singh, claimant, with Bant Singh and Rajinder Singh, was travelling in a truck proceeding from Dera Bassi side to Zirakpur Chandigarh side. When the said truck stopped at the bus adda of village Singhpura, the said Bant Singh and Rajinder Singh left and Didar Singh too got down from the truck and materialising suddenly from behind the said truck, tried to cross the road to reach his tea stall and thus struck against car No. DHB-660 driven by him, i.e., Salinder Singh, appellant, coming from Chandigarh side, though he tried his utmost to avoid the accident. It was further pleaded that there was no fault on his part and that Didar Singh, claimant, was himself responsible for the said accident. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.